Clinical and esthetic outcome with immediate insertion and provisionalization with or without connective tissue grafting in presence of mucogingival recessions: A retrospective analysis with follow‐up between 1 and 8 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recessions following immediate implant insertion are frequently reported in the literature. Data regarding implant installation in presence of mucogingival recessions are rare. PURPOSE: This study observes soft tissue level changes following immediate implant insertion and provisionalization of implants with or without connective tissue grafts in the anterior maxilla in patients with initial mucogingival recession within a follow-up period between one and eight years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients with marginal gingival recessions, which were designated for extraction and immediate implant insertion in the anterior zone of the maxilla (13-23), were included. Out of a larger group of immediate implants only single tooth replacements with 1 to 3 mm recession and a pre- and post-op CB-CT were selected. Facial bone deficiencies were grafted flaplessly with autologous bone in all sites. In a group of 13 patients the recessions (mean 2.3 ± 0.7 mm, range 1.0-3.0 mm) were grafted additionally by connective tissue (ABG + CTG), in the remaining 13 patients no soft tissue grafting (mean recession 1.8 ± 0.6 mm, range 1.0-3.0 mm) was performed (ABG). The marginal hard and soft tissue level, the width of the keratinized mucosa, the PES, and implant success were evaluated. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up period of 45 months the recessions were significantly reduced in the ABG group from 1.8 to 0.9 mm. The improvement was even more pronounced in the ABG + CTG group (from 2.3 to 0.5 mm). The PES improved significantly in both groups. At final examination all implants were still in function. Within the observational period, in 5 of 13 implants a marginal bone loss of more than 1 mm was noticed in the ABG, but in none of the ABG + CTG group. CONCLUSIONS: These clinical results provide evidence that immediate implant placement might improve the facial soft tissue level. This was more evident in cases with a greater recession and an additional treatment with connective tissue grafts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".